Power Companies Seize Land for AI Data Center Grid Expansion

Power companies across the United States are invoking eminent domain to seize private land for high-voltage transmission lines needed to fuel the AI boom, triggering lawsuits from landowners who argue the seizures primarily benefit private tech corporations rather than the public.

Utilities in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland have initiated or threatened condemnation proceedings to secure corridors for new power lines, framing the infrastructure as serving a public necessity despite the data centers being privately owned. The strategy relies on the Fifth Amendment's "public use" clause, which allows government entities to take private property for public purposes with just compensation.

In Maryland, PSEG is pushing forward with the 70-mile Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project through Baltimore, Carroll, and Frederick Counties to deliver electricity to data centers in northern Virginia. Affected landowners have pushed back in court, arguing their state is being treated as an "extension cord" for out-of-state tech facilities.

The controversy reflects the breakneck pace of AI infrastructure expansion. More than 3,000 data centers are currently operational across the U.S., with over 1,500 additional facilities in development, according to Pew Research Center analysis. These facilities consumed more than 4% of the nation's total electricity in 2024, straining existing grids and forcing utilities to build new transmission capacity.

Public resistance is mounting. A Gallup poll found that 7 in 10 Americans oppose having AI data centers built near their communities, suggesting widespread discomfort with the trade-offs between AI competitiveness and local property rights.

Legal scholars say the outcome of current lawsuits could reshape eminent domain law for decades. Aaron Walayat, assistant professor of law at the University of Dayton, noted that "arguments around whether additional transmission lines actually serve in-state customers may give landowners grounds for a challenge."

The core legal question: does infrastructure that primarily serves private AI companies qualify as public use under constitutional standards? If courts rule consistently in favor of utilities, the precedent could enable widespread forced land seizures across rural America to support the energy demands of a handful of tech giants, potentially overriding local opposition and bypassing state-level eminent domain reforms.

For now, landowners in multiple states are holding the line in court, betting that judges will distinguish between genuine public necessities and private corporate infrastructure dressed up as public utility.